Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 474 (PNJ)

Buta Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-04-23

AMAR DUTT

body2004
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - On 3.11.1991, F.I.R. No. 159 under Sections 186, 323, 324, 326, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Baghapurana against Buta Singh, Surjit Singh and Harnek Singh. According to the same, on 26.10.1991, Rajinder Kumar, a Forest Guard PW1, had left Kotla Rai Ka, at about 4.00 P.M. for patrolling the area along the Smadh Bhai drain to Sukhanand. He had covered about 4 Kilometres, when he found three persons grazing sheep and cutting branches of trees in the forest plantation. On seeing them, he went towards them and found Buta Singh armed with a Kulhari, Surjit Singh armed with a dang, both residents of Tharaj and an old person, whom he could not identify by name, also armed with a dang, present in the forest plantation. He asked them to desist from grazing sheep in the area. On hearing this, Buta Singh declared that the complainant should be taught a lesson and aimed a Kulhari blow on Rajinder Kumar, which he intercepted with his left hand and the blow hit him on his left little finger. Buta Singh gave another Kulhari blow which again hit Rajinder Kumar on the little finger. In the meantime, the other appellants started giving blows to the complainant with dangs. Rajinder Kumar raised a roula saying "killed killed", which attracted Naranjan Singh Beldar, who was working in the nearby plantation. In the meantime, certain other persons working in the nearby fields also came to the spot and the appellants ran away with their respective weapons. The motive, according to the complainant, was that he had required the appellants to desist from grazing sheep in the forest plantation and cutting the branches of the trees. The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Moga, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Mohinder Pal at 6.45 P.M. The doctor found two incised injuries and 12 abrasions and bruises on various parts of his body. He declared one of the injuries to be grievous. On receipt of a wireless message regarding the admission of the complainant, HC Amarjit Singh went to Civil Hospital, Moga on 27.10.1991. He moved an application for declaring Rajinder Kumar fit to make a statement and thereafter contacted the complainant for recording his statement. He declared one of the injuries to be grievous. On receipt of a wireless message regarding the admission of the complainant, HC Amarjit Singh went to Civil Hospital, Moga on 27.10.1991. He moved an application for declaring Rajinder Kumar fit to make a statement and thereafter contacted the complainant for recording his statement. The complainant told him that he would make a statement only after contacting his department and ultimately the statement was recorded on 3.11.1991 on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. Ex.PF/1 was recorded. During the investigation, the appellants were produced before the Investigating Officer by Ajaib Singh, Sarpanch on 9.11.1991 and arrested in the case. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in Court against them under Sections 186, 353, 333 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Ilaqa Magistrate committed the case for trial. On going through the papers sent up with the challan charges under Sections 186, 353, 333 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants. Since they pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to examine its witnesses. 3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined Vinod Kumar PW1, Dr. Mohinder Pal, PW2, HC Amarjit Singh PW3 and Rajinder Kumar complainant as PW4. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, the appellants denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. According to them, they complained against Rajinder Kumar for illegally selling forest wood and, therefore, they were involved in this false case. In their defence, they examined Darshan Singh Sarpanch of village Kotla Rai Ka as DW.1. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted Harnek Singh of the charges framed against him and convicted Buta Singh appellant under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and Surjit Singh under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Surjit Singh appellant was convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Buta Singh was convicted under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. 6. Appellants Buta Singh and Surjit Singh being dissatisfied by the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them, have filed Crl. A. No. 138-SB of 1994 and Crl. A. No. 176-SB of 1994 respectively, which are being disposed of by this common judgment. 7. I have heard Mr. M.K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State and have carefully perused the record. 8. The case against the appellants is based on the solitary statement of Rajinder Kumar. On going through the same, it is evident that the complainant from the very beginning has given the names of two of the three persons, who are alleged to have assaulted him on 26.10.1991. He had identified Harnek Singh accused in Court only as the third person, who had participated in the incident in which Buta Singh and Surjit Singh had caused injuries to him. On scanning through the statement of Rajinder Kumar, it is clear that the defence has not been able to make any visible dent about the participation of Buta Singh and Surjit Singh in the incident in which Rajinder Kumar was caused injuries when he tried to prevent them from grazing sheep in the forest area. There is, in my opinion, nothing in the cross-examination of the complainant, which could be made the basis by this Court for interfering with the view taken by the trial Court. The finding recorded by the trial Court has to be upheld. 9. During the course of arguments, Mr. Garg prayed that taking into consideration the fact that over 13 years have elapsed since the incident had taken place, it is a fit case in which sentence imposed upon the appellants should be reduced. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 436 (P&H). The facts of the present case are no doubt similar to the facts of Rakesh Kumars case (supra). He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 436 (P&H). The facts of the present case are no doubt similar to the facts of Rakesh Kumars case (supra). In the last over 13 years, which had elapsed since the incident, the appellants would undoubtedly have large number of responsibilities to meet. In these circumstances, while there can be no doubt about the seriousness of the offence yet the ends of justice would require that the appellants be not forced to associate after a lapse of more than 13 years with the hardened criminals to whom they are likely to meet in jail. They would have barely settled down in life and the incarceration which they have to face consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal might upset more than one family. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I deem it proper to uphold the conviction imposed on the appellants and instead of sending them to jail after a lapse of more than 13 years, they are directed to be released on probation for a period of three years on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. During this period, they shall undertake to keep peace and be of good behaviour and appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so. The appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each as compensation. Out of the said amount, if realised, 50 per cent would be paid to the complainant and the remaining shall be treated as costs of litigation. In the event of the failure of the appellants to comply with this order within one month from today, they would be arrested and sent to jail to serve the remaining period of their sentence. 10. Except with the above modification, both these appeals fail and are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.